Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2008
DILSHAD @ BILLI ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 193 of 2008
O R D E R
We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length.
The primary point urged by the learned counsel
for the appellant is that on the facts of the case the
common intention on the part of the accused could not
be discerned and only Deen Mohammad who is said to have
fired the fatal shot could have been sentenced for the
murder. The learned counsel has also cited several
judgments in support of her case.
Undoubtedly, there are certain observations in
the cited judgments which prima facie support the
argument raised by the learned counsel but it must be
observed that in determining a case of common intention
inter se several accused, the facts of the case have to
be given primary importance. In other words, no hard
and fast rule can be laid down as a legal proposition
with respect to the common intention which may be
shared between the accused.
In the present matter, we find that Din Mohammad
alone was armed with a pistol, Dilshad-appellant was
armed with an iron rod and that during the course of
the robbery all the accused had tried to restrain P.W.
2 – Rekha Vij, the wife of the deceased from attempting
to save her husband and had subsequently removed her
forcibly as she lay on top of him and he had then been
shot on the chest. It has also come in evidence that
in that process the appellants had also given her a
beating and also hit her with a cricket wicket on her
hand. The learned counsel has, however, contended that
as there was no medical evidence to show any injury on
her person the story given by P.W. 2 with regard to the
beating that she had received could not be believed. We
note that it is not her case that she had been given a
beating that had caused any visible injury to her as
she had deposed that she had been beaten up and then
removed from atop her husband when she was trying to
save him. To our mind, therefore, the common intention
is writ large on the peculiar facts of this case.
The appeals are thus dismissed.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J
[J.M. PANCHAL]
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009.